that's going to wrap up this hour of "msnbc live." see you tomorrow on "today." "andrea mitchell reports" starts right now. walled off. the president and democrats stuck on either side of the wall debate after the president fails to propose anything new. >> democrats in congress have refused to acknowledge the crisis. and they have refused to provide our brave border agents with the tools they desperately need to protect our families and our nation. >> the white house seems to move the goalpost every time they come with a proposal, they walk away from it. pretty soon the goalposts won't even be in the stadium. >> crisis management. the president's new line that there is a humanitarian crisis at the border does not fly with those liveing there. >> leadership here, i confidently can say, we don't see a crisis either humanitarian

or otherwise. >> i live in a texas city that's on the border and i walk out my door every day and i don't see my community in crisis. >> and the russian connection. paul manafort's lawyer accide accidentally reseal that manafort was sharing polling data during the presidential campaign with a man linked to russian intelligence. as news breaks today that rod rosenstein plans to leave when the new attorney general is sworn in. >> it's deeply concerning, particularly when we have an acting attorney general who is so hostile to the mueller investigation and an incoming general who has made it clear he doesn't believe the president can obstruct justice. good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. day 19 of the government shutdown. despite the president's first prime-time oval office speech and a democratic response, nothing has changed. the president is about to meet this hour with republican senators getting increasing

pressure to compromise as house democrats stand firm even picking up some republican house support. joining me kristen welker, kasie hunt and nbc national security and justin report-- >> good morning. >> what's the scoop? nothing announced. nothing new and they're exactly where we were yesterday. >> well, andrea, i put that very question to top adviser kellyanne conway and effectively said, look, there was nothing new in the president's speech, frankly there was nothing new in what we heard from democrats so how are they going to move forward? how do they re-open the government? she not surprisingly pushed back against that characterization and said what was new is that the president was taking his case to the american people. in reality it sounds a lot like what we heard from this president on the campaign trail in 2018 and in 2016 when he first launched his campaign, but

here's what's politically significant about it, andrea. it was likely aimed at those very republicans that you were just talking about on capitol hill who were starting to crack, who were saying, look, we need to start negotiating here. let's deal with border security separately. we need to get the government re-opened. the political pressure, andrea, is only going to mount on friday. that will be when some 800,000 federal employees don't get a paycheck and that's when the political pressure is going to start to become very real. not only for this president but for lawmakers on capitol hill. now, president trump about to sign a trafficking reauthorization act. it's going to extend federal funds to trying to prevent trafficking, human trafficking to help those who are survivors but he will undoubtedly get some questions from the press about all of this, so hopefully he'll answer them and then, of course, as you point out he'll head to capitol hill and try to take his case to some of those republican senators directly, andrea.

>> and, of course, we should point out that bill that he's signing is a perfect example of the fact that things can get done in they both try. >> it was a bipartisan bill. >> bipartisan bill. kasie hunt, up on the hill, we're hearing, you know, anecdotally some other members both senate and house republicans are feeling the pressure, are wanting something to happen. what do we know about lisa murkowski and some house members, as well. >> there's increasing re restlessness among republicans on capitol hill behind the scenes because a lot of them just don't see how the president gets out of this and quite frankly what the democrats are doing in the house putting these appropriations bills on the floor, it does put some legitimate pressure on republicans because, you know, they co-wrote these bills while republicans controlled both chambers. the members of the appropriations committee in the senate are incredibly invested in this, both democrat and republican, and you are seeing at least a dozen, maybe a couple

dozen republicans likely to vote in favor of some of these bills on the floor of the house. that's a very unusual situation. now, of course, the question are there enough republicans to overcome a presidential veto? right now that seems very unlikely but the question is what might more pressure in the middle of this, what impact might that have on this president? and i think we'll see lisa murkowski, there's been reporting from politico she is considering confronting the president in the meeting today, 1:00 policy luncheon. we've not seen those luncheons become controversial in recent memory, oftentimes we expect or go into them saying i'd love to be a fly on the wall and turns out that nothing really contentious actually takes place inside the room. but that could potentially be different today and so we're going to be tracking very, very closely just how much this is changing inside the republican conference because what that might do is change mitch

mcconnell's perspective. he got badly burned by the president before christmas and had somewhat stepped away from the negotiations and has been going along with the white house saying i'm not going to put these bills on the floor if the president won't sign them but he's also very attuned to his own members and if they start to make a significant shift as a body i think you'll see that reflected in his actions as well. >> and the fact-checking on this is going on every which direction but, julia, you were in charge of our fact-checking last night and have been on the beat and breaking stories right and left about the false claims from dhs. tell me what were the most glaring misstatements you heard last night from the oval office speech. >> i think the first, andrea, we are in uncharted territory as far as border crossings go. we are not at record highs, in fact, crossings over the border have dropped since the early 2000 and not where we were in 2014 or 2016 under oba. what has changed are the number of people coming to claim asylum

mainly women and children and that's not something a wall can fix. they come and willingly turn themselves in to customs and border protection. the other thing the president focused on is drugs and violence. from a dea study spillover violence from mexico into texas and along the southern border is actually very little. you can have very violent towns on one side that don't spill over into the u.s. side and as far as drugs go, most of those are coming through legal ports of entry in the mail. i've spoken to people within customs and border protection say what they need in order to stop the drug trade especially the opiates are more people at screening facilities at airports where all these packages are landing from international destinations. and then the one point that really struck out to me was that he said that women and children are the biggest victims of this border crisis. the women and children who are coming across are, again, turning themselves in, claiming asylum, escaping desperate

situations but this administration is not interested in protecting them from what we can see. there are in ongoing negotiations with mexico to have them wait there for months or even years while they wait for their case to play out in the united states. >> and as well as this, kristen welker, the president's attitude towards the speech, shall we say seemed low energy to use one of his favorite phrases from 2016. but i mean it was not just the format, it was not his favorite format clearly. there was no live audience to interact with but according to peter baker's reporting in "the new york times" during a lunch that the president held with tv ancho anchors, at least peter baker is reporting and we've confirmed in that the president's own strategy as pointless. he made clear in blunt terms he was not inclined to give the speech or go to texas which he is planning to do tomorrow but was talked into it by advisers

according to two people briefed on the discussion who asked not to be identified sharing details, quote, it's not going to change a damn thing but i'm still doing it said the president and the advisers bill klein and kellyanne conway and sarah sanders. >> it's remarkable. there's lonely one word for it. he would acknowledge he didn't feel he could accomplish anything with that speech last night in the oval office and then with his trip tomorrow but it does underscore what is happening here which is that the white house felt as though from a messaging perspective they were getting beaten and that the president needed to get out front, not only with republicans on capitol hill to try to shore up support there but really to the american people because if you look at many polls, they show that a majority of people do point the finger at the president when it comes to this shutdown, so they wanted to try to redirect the narrative and president trump clearly understood the need for that.

i can tell you i've been talking to some of his allies who said, look, they felt as though he delivered a strong speech last night, they wished it had come earlier before the shutdown or if not before in the very early days to really try to set the argument here. but remarkable because, of course, a lot of people were wondering if he would declare a national emergency. he didn't do that and reiterated a lot of what he has said before, andrea. >> kristen, he was tweeting about california and those horrendous wildfires that are still, you know, resulting in now mudslides and other after-effects mean not back in their homes and tweeted billions are sent to the state of california for forest fires that with proper forest management would never happen unless they get their act together which is unlikely, i have ordered fema to send no more money. it is a disgrace phil situation in lives and money. do we know what he's talking about and whether he's really cutting off fema money to the victims of those wildfires? >> white house officials have not clarified exactly what the

president was talking about there. what prompted that, that is an argument we've heard from the president in the past particularly when we were really focused on those wildfires, andrea, but i can tell you he has gotten a sharp backlash from lawmakers in the area but also from nancy pelosi who tweeted at donald trump's trumps threats, insults, the memories of those who perished and thousands more who lost their homes, at gop leader must join me to condemn and call on potus to reassure millions that our government will be there for them in their time of need so really trying to turn up the heat on mitch mcconnell to speak out and to say, look, this type of language won't be tolerated and that we're not going to abandon states like california when they need federal funds but undoubtedly this is sparking really a sharp backlash from local officials but from nancy pelosi as well who is, of course, representing the state, andrea.

>> thanks so much, kristen welker and, of course, we expect we may get some questions that are asked of the president in that oval office bill signing on human trafficking so stand by for that. kristen welker, julia ainsley, thank you and, of course, casey hunt on capitol hill. meanwhile president trump announcing he was considering declaring that national emergency allowing had him to bypass congress and build the wall that he's been demanding on the southern border but last night in his speech as she said, he didn't mention it. this morning, white house press secretary sarah sanders was asked about whether it was still a possibility. >> -- declare a national emergency in his speech. >> something we're still looking at and certainly still on the table. >> joining me now is congressman mac thornberry on the house armed services committee. thank you so much. i want to ask you about that first. if he declares an emergency the idea would be to use pentagon funds and maybe the military to build the wall or finance the wall. is that a good idea? >> no, i do not think it's a

good idea. the defense budget was cut about 22% through most of the obama years and it had deep -- it caused deep damage in our military. the last couple of years we've been trying to climb back out of that but military construction has been one of the accounts that has been most affected so there are real needs today with barracks and maintenance facilities and all sorts of military construction projects that are important for national security. so my bottom line is i think no one including the president or members of congress should have to choose between securing the border and supporting our troops. i think we need to do both. >> and he's making -- in he does do this he would be making a national security argument. you're saying that is not an argument that works for you at all. >> well, i am saying that the -- securing the border is the responsibility of the department of homeland security. and they should be funded to do

their job. you should not take money from the department of defense or anybody else to do the job that homeland security should be doing. >> where do you stand on whether or not the senate should join the house and pass those appropriation bills and do everything but homeland and then negotiate homeland the wall and that separately. >> well, the problem with that is this has been a negotiation throughout the whole time that president trump has been in office and it's really not gotten anywhere which -- that's really part -- the biggest part of my frustration, it's hard to sort through the political positioning on both sides and get down to the facts. if we could just deal with the facts, if we treated this like any other issue, one side says zero, one side says ten, we'll meet somewhere in the middle about five but none that have discussion is happening right now. >> well, in fact, the president said appoint 7, appoint 6, 5.7 and there was agreement on 2.6

and now in the last negotiation when chuck schumer said apparently to the president would you take the 2.6 which mike pence had said, you know, you voted for that understandably and the president said, no, he wouldn't so does the president have to come down and meet the democrats somewhere in the middle and then do you think you could increase the pressure on the democrats to compromise? >> yeah, i think we have to meet somewhere in the middle and i don't know what that number is, but that's the way most of these things are generally resolved and if you look at what the administration put out just on sunday, it is, yes, physical barriers on the border but more humanitarian aid. it's also more immigration judges, and more screeners at the ports of entry which gets at the point your correspondent was talking about about how all the drugs get here. >> exactly. >> i think that they're advancing -- we just need people who really want to deal with the problem again and not be so

worried about the political deal. >> i was talking to some republicans last night who said that there is a deal to be made with a number that starts with 2. do you think that is a legitimate approach that the white house should now consider? >> maybe. i think any serious negotiation is absolutely legitimate and it needs to occur. the problem is as you know speaker pelosi said it was immoral to add any more to the current fencing that's on the wall so about 30% of the border has some sort of physical barriers, the president's proposal would add 235 more miles, so could you add 100 or 150? sure but if you say one more inch of barriers is immoral then that puts us into this posturing situation that is not advancing the cause and as you point out federal employees and lots of

americans are affected by that. >> what do you want to see mitch mcconnell do? do you think mitch mcconnell should be open to taking something that the congress pass, the house passes and considering it and then send it to the president. let the president decide. >> well, i think we need to solve this problem. and it can easily be done. i agree with those who say, you can have a 30-minute meeting and end up somewhere in the middle. maybe you include dak prescott -- daca and you can open the government and everything can move ahead. it's this posturing, this -- some people fear that there are folks on capitol hill who don't want to see president trump have a win in any political -- a political win in any form so if that's what you're worried about, you're not worried about solving the problem and we need to solve this problem among other reasons because we need to make sure that the department of defense resources are used for

our military who desperately need it. >> but is it your view, what would you say to the president about being willing to come down off of his number in order to get some kind of dialogue going? >> i would say negotiate, mr. president and the vice president told house republicans last night that the administration is very interested in negotiating. the problem is they hadn't had really anybody on the other side. so i don't know what's been said in those meetings, what i do know as i mentioned is if this were any other sort of problem, you'd get the staff together, you'd meet somewhere in the middle and could solve it pretty quickly. that's what needs to happen here. >> congressman mac thornberry, thank you so much. thanks for being with us today. i appreciate it. >> thank you. and coming up, reading between the lines, botched redactions exposing new details on mueller's paul manafort case. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc.

>> tech: ...every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why at safelite, we'll show you exactly when we'll be there. with a replacement you can trust. all done sir. >> grandpa: looks great! >> tech: thanks for choosing safelite. >> grandpa: thank you! >> child: bye! >> tech: bye! saving you time... so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ at booking.com, we can't guarantee you'll good at that water jet thingy... but we can guarantee the best price on this hotel. or any accommodation, from homes to yurts. booking.com booking.yeah

take your razor, yup. up and down, never side to side, shaquem, you got it? come on stay focused. hard work baby, it gonna pay off. >>got it. ran out of ink and i have a big meeting today >>and 2 boxes of twizzlers... yeah, uh...for the team... >>the team? gooo team.... order online pickup in an hour and, now buy one hp ink get one 30% off at office depot officemax and, now buy one hp ink get one 30% off the full value ofe your totaled new car.

the guy says "you picked the wrong insurance plan." no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back, including depreciation. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i am a family man. i am a techie dad. i believe the best technology should feel effortless. like magic. at comcast, it's my job to develop, apps and tools that simplify your experience. my name is mike, i'm in product development at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome.

deputy attorney general rod rosenstein who has, of course, been overseeing the mueller investigation and who has been a frequent target of trump angry tweets plans to step down within the next month. according to administration officials, these officials say that rosenstein will stay on the job though until the new attorney general william barr is confirmed. barr, the president's nominee to fill that post, is on capitol hill today meeting with senators ahead of his confirmation

hearings which begin next tuesday. joining me is pete williams, nbc news justice correspondent, peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times" and an msnbc political contributor and clint watts, former special agent. pete, first to you. this would be the normal transition, but rod rosenstein clearly has been a target of the white house at times and certainly because of his role on the mueller probe is getting a lot of attention. >> yeah, we don't normally talk about the departure of deputy attorney generals so it's his role in the mueller investigation that is so interesting. but just a couple of things, he was confirmed in late april so if he stays through early march which is what we're told he would do he would be on the job 22 months which is about average for the last half dozen or so depp attorneys so it's a matter of timing. people close to him said he only

intended to serve two years. we have a new attorney general coming in. no reason to think he won't be confirmed. he'll want his own deputy. that's another factor. the third factor, andrea is what we're told here now is that, you know, we've been reporting for the last couple of weeks that it looks like the mueller investigation is going to wrap up here short think, it's in the bottom of the ninth, if you will, perhaps by mid-february and that appears to be a factor in rosenstein's thinking too. that he's not going to leave and leave bob mueller hanging, that his departure, say, early march would give time for mueller to at least finish the report and then it would be up to, of course, it'll still be up to william barr if he's the attorney general to make that decision. because he wouldn't be recused, the rules say the attorney general supervises the special counsel investigation. but rosenstein would probably still play some role in that as indeed he's doing now even

though we have an acting attorney general who is also not recused. >> and peter baker, lindsey graham on capitol hill who is the new chairman of the judiciary committee and is going to be chairing these hearings, these confirmation hearings for william barr seems to be trying to reassure people his own colleagues who have to vote for barr that barr is not hostile to robert moeller despite legal guidance he wrote last june indicating he did not think that mueller had wide legal standing, le let's say. >> couldn't charge the president with obstruction of justice is what he said. >> thanks for that correction, pete. so let me play a little bit of lind a graham because this was sort of over the top saying that lindsey graham and bob barr are best friends. >> in terms of mr. barr and bob moell

mueller they've been personal friends for 20 years and worked together at the department of justice. i didn't know this. their wives are in a bible study together. i think they're best friends. i think mr. mueller has been to two of his daughter's weddings so his opinion of mr. mueller is very, very high in terms of ethics and character and professionalism. >> so, peter baker, and i guess i misspoke. that lindsey graham, of course, is on the committee, grassley, chuck grassley is the chair, but what is your take on all of this? >> well, you're right. i think lindsey graham is trying to reassure skeptics that bill barr can be, you know, a fair manager of this process, that he isn't already conflicted out because of that memo that he wrote last year unsolicited and, you know, he'll get a lot of questions about this at these hearings and it'll start next week, no question bit. lindsey graham is trying to lay

the groundwork and soften it for him. i'm curious to know whether or not president trump knew these things about became barr when he appointed him. did he know in fact that he and robert moellueller and their families are close. you could see the president reacting to that not in favor of bill barr. that doesn't necessarily change the larger question which is what role does he see himself playing in supervising bob mueller? what decision will he make if bob mueller comes to him with a report in terms of releasing that to the congress or public. those are big questions that he's going to hear asked i think pretty vigorously next week certainly by democrats if not by republicans. >> and i wanted to also ask clint watts here about paul manafort and the significance of what we now saw was the failure to fully redact, i mean, they simply copy and by copy and pasting, you could see what was written that paul manafort when

he was the chair of the campaign was actually talking to this very suspect figure connected we believe strongly connected to the kremlin and their intelligence to give them private polling data on the campaign. >> and this is one of the strangest things, why else would you do this unless it was some form of collusion? it's hard to explain why you would provide that polling data to the person unless it was to pass it to some sort of associate. a detailed thing. konstantin kilimnik, it's not like he's combing through the polling data. i can't imagine that happening either so this is that missing piece we've never known about which is has there been some sort of exchange of information, money, conversations, quid pro quo between members of the trump campaign and the russian government or their extensions. >> to play devil's advocate, could it be he was so much in hawk to deripaska he wanted to show him some inside information but the bottom line is that getting that information would

help them target with this online targeting. i mean, it was perfectly, you know, synced up to the timing of some of the release of the hacked emails. >> it's one of the things the russians could not do from afar. everything they were doing in social media they could play that out online. they could use social media analytics and packages but to do on the ground polling, whether through its political group, a campaign or even a private firm, very difficult to do, very expensive and so that would really help them harness their targeting and make sure their issues in in sync. >> pete, i want to ask you about this mid-february time line. if there is, in fact, hard to read the tee leaa leave, does t mean that there won't be a legal challenge, that will won't be an attempt to subpoena the president and take this through the courts, that they're pretty much set on accepting his answers, those written answers

and follow-up answers no interview -- >> i think that's it. you could assume that's the case. we've been told this consistently for the last couple of weeks both by people inside and outside the government and not i should emphasize by anybody directly involved in the mueller's office. all people on the periphery. you never know, every door they open seems to lead to another door so they may not even know themselves but all the indications are that they're in the final phase, i'm sure more indictments are to come but it does seem like at least in terms of any -- lots of further work on the president that doesn't seem likely. but, again, the simple answer is i don't know. >> peter baker, you wrote the story, your team wrote the story revealing what the president said to the tv anchors at lunch yesterday. pretty astounding that the president would be so dismissive

of a strategy, such a high-profile strategy coming from his team. >> well, especially when he's trying to sell it to the anchors who he invited there for lunch. exactly right. he said, you know, he made very clear that he wasn't all that excited about giving this speech or making this trip to mcallen, texas, tomorrow. he said i don't think it will change anything, he says but these people think it will work and pointed to his communications aides who were there in the room at the time. and, you know, it's not really surprising, he's dubious about this, that does seem, you know, to fit what we know about him but it does seem to raise questions about why you would do that at a very -- unless you're called specifically for the purpose of selling the very strategy you're disparaging. >> and we're about to see some of the tape from the president's signing in the oval office of the legislation, bipartisan legislation against human trafficking adding more money, some resources for victims of human trafficking and when we

see that we'll watch the signing and then come back and continue to talk because there was also a lengthy q&a we understand. we're expecting this at any moment. we don't want to interrupt it once it starts. when we see the oval office and signing we'll take that to you. here's the president signing this legislation. we'll be right back. >> okay, thank you so much. appreciate you being here. hasn't been so long. late last night and we're having some very good times in our country. we're doing very well except for the border. the border is a big problem. it's a very dangerous problem and so i can talk all about the job numbers and how well we're doing on the economy, the stock market is up i guess now over 30% since the election, so many good things are happening but we have to take care of the border and we're all working together. i really believe the democrats and the republicans are working

together. i think that something will happen, i hope, otherwise we'll go about it in a different manner and i don't think we'll have to do that but you never know. in a few moments i'll sign legislation continuing my administration's extensive efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking. i spoke about it last night, human trafficking. >> as you see, the president is signing the legislation. this is taped about a half hour ago in the oval office, the tape was then brought back, it's been played back -- is playing out now but joining me now is senator tim kaine. senator, you watched the speech last night and we'll go back when the president starts taking questions. but from the speech last night, and from criticisms from republicans that there's been no give on the democratic side, now, let me pause it that the president has to come down from 5.7 billion but is there something in the middle? republicans saying to me if you started with $2 billion and

threw in something for daca and something for tps for the haitian refugees and others who you well know have been here for years. >> absolutely. >> 40,000. >> who should not be deported. if you gave them protection isn't there a compromise to be made? >> sure, there is. let's start. first re-open government. why punish families going to national parks, why punish treasury agents, why shut down the coast guard which interkicks drugs because the president hasn't got his way, re-open government is the first. second, is there a compromise on border security and immigration? of course, there is. >> which involves something for a wall or a fence or something. >> border security funding for something democrats want and, andrea, we took that to him in february. so i was one of 16 senator, 8 democrat, 8 republicans, we went to the president and said $25 billion for border security over ten years, permanent protection for 1.8 million dreamers. we thought he was going to say yes. he asked for both halves.

he didn't counteroffer and name called everybody involved including the republican senators as you're for open borders. we became convinced he's less interested in solving the problem than using immigration as a sound bite or a spectacle or a talking point on a tv show. he has not shown the willingness to give anything. let's talk about what that would be. give something not i ask for this and let me reduce what i ask. giving is not i ask for this and i'm going to punish 800,000 federal employees if you don't give me what you want. giving is here's what i want and democrats you want to deal with dreamers. you want to deal with tps. i will do a deal that involves that and the president has never been willing to do it. if he comes out and says he is willing to do it, then that, of course, that will open up a good dialogue and find a compromise. we have to re-open government first. >> is there any compromise that would involve dealing with the border security issues first because that's apparently what he is saying in this oval office moment today. >> of course, democrats have

voted for border security all the time. when we did the bipartisan bill in 2013 it had 40 plus billion dollars of border security and last february when we went to the president with the deal, dreamers and border security, we good 46 out of 49 democrats to vote for $25 billion in border security over ten years. now, let's be specific. we want to spend it the right way, not the wrong way. stopping fentanyl and heroin, a wall won't do it but investments in the ports of entry and giving the mail service and u.p.s. more tools to deal with fentanyl coming in, that would help. the biggest class of people here undocumented are those who come in on visas and overstay the visas. you could build a million foot wall and it wouldn't have anything to do with that. we want to spend the money to fix the problem, not waste it on a vanity project the president said mexico would pay for. >> what about the defense issues? if he declares a national emergency at the border and wants to take pentagon money he's got a lot of leverage. cow challenge him in court but

unless you get an injunction this thing could start. >> it could but let me tell you what we would do. i'm an armed services committee member. where is this coming from? if you're taking money out of defense mill con projects to build the wall, they're fixing bar racks that have lead contamination so our troops will be safe or hardening buildings overseas so that they're not vulnerable to terrorist attacks or repairing the air base in florida or the marine base in north carolina that just got blitzed, billions of dollars worth of repairs after the hurricanes last november, so there's no money in the military budget that he would take that is not coming out of some other important priority and we would really have to focus in on that on the armed services committee. >> and, in fact, mac thornberry was on the program just about a half hour ago as you know ranking member on armed services on the house side and does not want military money taken. >> right. >> for this purpose. he says the military, you know, needs the funding they've got. >> i think that is a bipartisan

position on the armed services positions on both. we did a significant plus-up of the military to deal with new threats in china and deal with threats in russia and cyber, the motion of all of a sudden we'll take that money and spend it, the president's own team says a wall isn't the right answer. investments in border security, fencing, drones, more border agents, underground sensors to detect motion. there are things you should do but the wall is not the right answer. let's just spend -- i think the dollar amount is going to be -- we can get to a dollar amount but the -- you got to spend it the right way. >> you've got republicans saying, look, the democrats clearly you've got leverage now in the house side but that the democrats just want to punish the president and win political points. >> who -- whoa, who is punishing who? it's this president that is punishing the federal workers in virginia who write to me, they're worried about their mortgage, they're worried about health bills.

they're postponing medical procedures. they're not buying prescriptions for their kids. on friday we'll tie for the longest shutdown in history. that's a payday, 800,000 are at risk of not getting paid. january 11th, january 11th is when most families are digging out of christmas bills coming due. january 11st in the winter where heating bills are the highest. january 11st is when families sit around and try to stoke a tuition check so their kid can go back for the spring semester. the president is punishing workers and families that want to go to national parks or small businesses that want to get small business loans and puni punishing our country's reputation. we say re-open government and we will do a deal. we've already shown you that we're willing to negotiate by the deal we put on your table last march. >> lindsey graham, your colleague on the republican side had something to say about all this. just i guess moments ago. let's watch. >> on the shutdown, why not

re-open while this gets fought out. why shouldn't federal workers in south carolina get paid while y'all are figuring it out. >> we can reimburse the federal worker and i know it's going to be inconvenient and financial hardship and i hate that but this is the best chance i've seen to force a solution to border security. >> your response to that? >> you shouldn't punish folks uninvolved in the dispute. the president went on tv and talked about problems of drugs coming through the border. one of the agencies he shut is the coast guard. the coast guard interkicks drugs. now, coast guard employees, many are essential and working without pay which is not good for morale and some are not as essential so they're not working. why shutter agencies dealing with security challenges to make a point about a border wall. we should re-open the government functions unconnected to the debate and then have a debate about the issue that's on the table which is a big and important issue, i'll give the president and lindsey graham that. why punish all these families?

it's not just workers. it's again families that have limited vacation days to take their kids to parks and see the gate closed and 95% of the workforce that works on the snap program, the food stamp program has been furloughed. in you're a family falling into hunger and applying the workforce isn't there to help you. why punish all these people? they don't have anything to do with the border security debate. re-open everything else. we can find a deal. we can find a deal. >> tim kaine, the senator from virginia, 170,000 workers and the president is now taking question. >> they make a lot of money. they have the best vehicles you can buy. stronger, bigger and faster vehicles than our police have and i.c.e. has and border patrol has. so they're pretty good at that. they have areas that they go to. it's like a highway. and we have to close them up and if we don't close them up you're all kidding yourselves. look, we can all play games.

but a wall is a necessity. all of the other things, the sensors and the drones, it's all wonderful to have and works well but only if you have the wall. if you don't have the wall, it doesn't matter. a drone isn't stopping a thousand people from running through. and so we can all talk and, you know, interestingly, if you look, every -- virtually every democrat over the last 15 years they've approved what we're asking for so i think we're doing something, i think we're getting closer. but we really have to think about the people of our country. this is not a fight i wanted. i didn't want this fight. we have to think about the people of our country and we have to do what's right at our border and many other places that we have to do what's right at our border. human trafficking cannot be stopped if we don't have a steel barrier or a concrete wall, something very powerful. it cannot be stopped. there is nothing -- we have the most talented law enforcement people in the world as far as

i'm concerned. right alongside of being behind me, it doesn't mean a thing if they're going to be driving women and children through sections of the border where nobody is where you can't be because you don't have enough manpower or womanpower. you don't have enough of anything. 2,000 miles of border. so if you're not going to stop it, in all fairness there's not much they can do. they can get them every once in a while. the other way we can eliminate the problem as it pertains to the area that is the worst problem. probably the world's worst problem because they come into the united states because we have the money. that's true with drugs and everything i said for human trafficking is also true with drugs. so we got to get the politics out of this and go back to common sense, you know, they say it's a medieval solution, a wall, that's true. it's medieval because it worked then and it works even better now. israel put up a wall, 99.9% successful according to bibi

netanyahu. he came into my office a couple of months ago, he said, what's with the wall. we put up a wall, it was 99.9% successful. 99.9. i said do you mind if i use that number. he said because he'll fact-check and say it was actually only 99%, the president told a fib. he told me 99.9. maybe he'll change it and make it 99. but they put up a wall and they don't have a problem anymore. and we have to do the same thing. the united states must not incentivize or enable these evil crimes. instead we should do everything we can to fight them and that's what we're doing. i call on congress to send me a funding bill to secure the border, build the barrier and help end this horrific assault on innocent life, not to mention the drugs, not to mention the gangs and the criminals and i will very gladly sign this legislation having to do

specifically with a horrible, horrible worldwide problem, human trafficking and it's my honor to do it and i very much appreciate all of the democrats' support. i very much do. thank you. okay. [ applause ] >> the president signs the legislation, we'll pick it up again when he is being asked questions. kristen welker is standing by. eugene robinson, "washington post" columnist is here with me. we heard him repeat what he's been saying about the need for the wall, the comparison with the wall in israel and walling off the west bank is ludicrous on its face for anyone who has seen it to say that bibi

netanyahu says it works. everything is settled between israel and the palestinians. >> it's great. >> that was a pretty extraordinary comparison. but the bottom line is that what we're hearing today is no give on either side. democrats still think they have leverage, nobody is willing to negotiate. and here the president is about to take some questions so let's listen to what he has to say and we'll come back. >> what do you say to those federal workers, security guards, secret service agent, tsa ailings now going without pay? >> i think they have been terrific. these are terrific patriots, a lot of them agree with what i'm doing and i hope we're going to have the situation worked out but they want security in our country and so do i. that's all we want. we want security. we want common sense and security in our country. when you look at what's going on, immigration just went to very high on your list so even on your list, immigration is very high on the list but we're not talking about just immigration and i would like and

i'll say it in front of some of our democrat friends here, i would love to see a big immigration bill where we really take care of the situation. i know you want to. everybody wants to. who wouldn't want to? right now we have a problem. we have to take care of this and it's quicker and easier to do this individually but we would like to see real immigration reform in this country because we need it and it can be a beautiful thing and with all of the companies coming into our country, we have seven car companies now that are announcing or have announced just recently and we have many car companies and other companies as you know, they're flowing in, we have the best job numbers virtually that we've ever had for african-american, the best ever, hispanic, asian, the best ever, the best in 50 years in the overall number and soon that's going to be beaten so we have the best job numbers. we need people. we need great, qualified people. we want them to come in so i think it's a great time right now because of that. we need people, rob. and i mean in ohio, you need

workers. and i know you feel the same way. i'll speak for chris but everybody wants to see immigration reform. it just is overdue. and it's always been very political and maybe this will turn out to be a blessing in disguise but, jon, i will tell you this, the people out there want something to happen at our southern border whether it's human trafficking, whether it's drugs, whether it's criminals, whether it is ms-13, the folks behind me know all about ms-13 and how violent and vicious they are and where they come from, and they all come from the same place and they all come in the same way. they come right across that border and we've thrown thousands out. i would say thousands, right, fellas? i mean literally ms-13. you have a lot of. i know, rich. we throw thousands out a year and then they come back and we move them all the way back to where they came from, all the way back and they find a way to come back again.

we need strong borders and we need immigration reform. beyond that we need immigration reform. okay, let's go. >> reporter: but these people have to go without their paychecks. some are being forced to work without pay. some have been furloughed. >> they ha're all going to get money. so humanly the way you express it, many of those people you talk about are on my side. i've had so many people, the beautiful thing with social media the world can write to you and you take a look at social media. so many of those people are saying it's very hard torfor me but, mr. president, you're doing the right thing, get it done. i've had so many of them. they love our country and want to see it be done. look, this is just common sense. they want to see it be done correctly. we need a barrier. we have to stop people from coming in the way they come in and if we don't have it, you can never have border security

unless you have a steel barrier, a concrete wall, you can call it whatever you want but without it you'll never have -- you can have the greatest talent in the world, you will never in have tt in the world. in a million years, you won't have border security. can't happen. >> what's your current thinking on national emergency? did you announce it last night? >> we might work a deal. if we don't, i may go that route. i have the absolute right to do national emergency if i want. >> what's your threshold for -- >> my threshold will be if i can't make a deal with people that are unreasonable. >> what's your message to the republicans now on capitol hill -- >> we have tremendous republican support. i spoke to a few of the people in the house. we have tremendous support. the senate has been incredible. mitch mcconnell has been incredible. he said if the president is not going to sign t i'm not going to waste my time. and i mean, rob portman is here, he can tell you. he's strong on border security. we have tremendous support in the senate.

we have tremendous support in the house. and, by the way, you know, they say, is it true that somebody, a congressman, he broke away. okay. every once in a while you're going to have that. you know who else has that? the democrats have that, too, because they have their people breaking away, too. you know why? because they know you need border security, but you don't report that. but the fact is that there is tremendous support. i would know without support, i would be the first one to know, i may be the last one, too. but there is tremendous support. right now, if i did something that was foolish, like gave up on border security, the first ones that would hit me are my senators. they'd be angry at me. the second ones would be the house. and the third ones would be, frankly, my base and a lot of republicans out there and a lot of democrats that want to see border security.

what else? >> why not sign the other bills so some of these workers can get paid? >> do you think i should do that john? >> it's not for me to say -- >> i watch your one-sided reporting. seriously, john, do you think i should just sign? tell me, tell me. john, do you think i should just sign? >> i'm saying that if you sieb that, these workers can start getting paid. the government can start -- >> you would do that if you were in my position, you'd do that? >> i'm not in your position. i'm asking you -- >> i'm asking you, would you do that if you were in my position? because if you would do that, you should never be in this position. because you'd never get anything done. good-bye, everybody. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. >> well, back with us now, nbc's kristen welker at the white house and eugene robinson. so, kristen, i don't know. would you sign the other appropriation bills? reopen the government, let hundreds of thousands of people get paid, be able to pay their bills, and then negotiate on homeland security the way any

other chief executive might do? that was pretty amazing. >> it was pretty amazing. and the president wasn't giving up trying to press john carl, put the question back to him. but ultimately, what you heard there was president trump effectively saying he's not going to. he said if you do that, you wouldn't be in my position because you'd never get anything done. >> he was basically saying, kristen, that it's all about the politics for him. he wants to satisfy his base, and he doesn't want to weaken his position with republicans on the hill, house and senate. >> right. and you also heard him say that some of these federal workers have reached out through social media to say that they support what he's doing. that also struck me because, remember, he's also cast the federal workers as mostly democrats. so sort of trying to have it both ways there. i think it's notable to point out the president is keeping the possibility of declaring a national emergency on the table, andrea. of course, we are very focused on whether or not he was going

to announce that last night. he didn't wind up doing it, but clearly it's still on the table. but not his preferred route. he clearly sees that, i think, as one of his last resorts, to try to get out of this and also save face. now, again, he's going to be heading to capitol hill. so even though he says he still has support among most republicans, the reality is he's going to capitol hill to have lunch with senate republicans to make sure that he is trying to sure up their support because there have been some key defections. so, a number of different headlines coming out of this. andrea, still no movement. still no signs he's willing to negotiate. >> and we, of course, are keeping an eye, kristen, exactly to your point on that corridor on the second floor of the senate near the ohio caucus. he's about to arrive and we will see him there. kasie hunt is there, eugene robinson. before the president arrives on capitol hill, there is weakening support, at least lisa murkowski said she wants to see the other bill signed and has joined susan

collins, cory gardener. it's only three out of the 53 republicans. >> right, three out of 53. others are giving -- i heard marco rubio this morning say, i'm not there yet, but he sort of emphasized the yet. you know, so his support is leaking away in the senate. while mitch mcconnell has held the line so far, i think -- my guess is that if enough republican senators decide they're ready to start passing these democratic bills, which, after all, the senate has passed before, so they favor them. i wonder if mitch is actually going to continue to stand in the way or if he's going to allow a parliamentary maneuver around him and oh, how did that happen, something like that. i just -- you know, the other thing that's interesting, saw it last night, saw it again today,

the sort of subdued tone that the president has, as if he's going through these motions. he's not giving an inch, but there is a sort of verve and gus toe that i'm accustomed to seeing from this president that i'm not seeing in this fight. >> because he's not winning. >> he's not winning the fight. he's losing the fight. and i don't think he sees how he can win it. now, he did say that if he can't make a deal, that would be his threshold for declaring an emergency. so if it was normal for a president and he took that seriously, that would be a big headline. president says no deal declaring national emergency. donald trump, what he says today, you know, at 12:53, is not what we hear at 6:05. who knows? >> he's also hearing from house and senate republicans that they do not want an emergency that would entail taking money from the defense appropriations and

putting it toward the wall. >> think about that. it's a huge violation of conservative principles, right? the constitutional originalalists -- my goodness, the president doing all this. and number two, taking money away from the military in the way that he likely would do, you know, i heard thornberry earlier and he's not happy about that. >> exactly. nbc's gabe gutierrez is in sunland park, new mexico. gabe, before we run out of time and see the president arriving on the hill, you're right there near the steel slats, the border area in new mexico. using funds from the bush administration, right? >> yeah, this is what the president -- exactly right. this is what the president is referring to when he talked about that steel barrier. we're here in sunland park, new mexico. right through here, the outskirts of juarez, new mexico. this is the type of barrier the president derided repeatedly as a candidate. he talked about there being a need for a concrete wall. now he's talking about a steel barrier. in the distance over there, you can see some students that are

actually going right up to this border fence, and you can speak to somebody on the other side. now, this as you mention, andrea, the funding was set aside during the bush administration back in 2006. the actual fence was constructed just several years ago. before that here, there was a chain link fence. for the most part, people could traverse here, even though it was illegal to do so, they did it into the surrounding community here. came in, got water and food and went back across. they can't do that any more. there's also a few feet of steel beneath this to prevent tunnelling. but this is the type of barrier now that the president is talking about that is needed across the border. advocates here on the border -- we spoke with daca recipients last night that watched his address, first primetime address in the oval office. they were watching very closely, so this debate is raging on. the president still has many supporters here along the southwest border, people who say he should stick up for his campaign promise and that this fight is well worth it. but many others that we spoke with, especially those daca recipients, who say that the

president is totally mistaken on this, he's referring to undocumented immigrants as criminals and they just don't see where he's going with this or where there is any end in sight. as you can see, if the president gets his way, you would see much more of this throughout different parts of the southwest border. the problem is that, you know, many parts of this border, it's difficult to construct this. the cost could be increasing, but right now many people here along the border are watching to see how this partial government shutdown plays out, andrea. >> gabe gutierrez where it's actually happening on the border there. and this debate continues. no progress. you've heard the threat from the president that if there is no progress, that's when he would consider the emergency -- the emergency declaration, the national security emergency. it would be legally challenged, but there is also opposition from republicans as well. so that might be a last resort indeed. with thanks to eugene robinson and gabe gutierrez, kristen welker and everyone else today, that does it for us for this

edition of andrea mitchell report. follow us online on facebook and on twitter at mitchell reports. here is ali velshi and stephanie ruhle. >> i am ali velshi. >> i'm stephanie ruhle. let's get smarter. >> soon. >> today. >> we're having good times in our country, except the border, it's a big problem, a very dangerous problem, and i can talk all about the job numbers and how well we're doing on the economy, the stock market is up i guess now we're over 30% since the election. so many good things are happening. but we have to take care of the border, and we're all working together. i really believe the democrats and the republicans are working together. i think that something will happen, i hope. otherwise we'll go about it in a different manner, and i don't think we'll have to doth